Wealth Cycle (long)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., output format, side effects). It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very concise: two sentences plus example. The structure is front-loaded with the key concept. However, the first sentence is somewhat cryptic ('Long-cycle archetype') and could be clearer. Still, no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema and minimal description. The tool does not explain what it returns (e.g., a chart, text, or numerical values) or how to interpret 'wealth cycle'. Given the large set of financial tools, more context is needed for an agent to select appropriately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the example request, which only shows typical values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states 'Long-cycle archetype tied to Jupiter and Saturn returns' which indicates a financial wealth cycle analysis, but it lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'calculates' or 'generates') and does not explicitly differentiate from other financial tools like financial_wealth_house. The purpose is hinted but not fully clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The example request body shows input format but does not explain context or exclusions. No mention of other financial astrology tools that might be more appropriate for specific queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.